Rockstar Games announces that L.A. Noire is headed to Windows this fall, offering PC owners the chance to check out the console detective game (thanks Mark). Here's the deal:

PC gaming aficionados, we hear you. And today, we are very happy to announce that L.A. Noire will be arriving on the PC platform this fall.

Developed by Rockstar Leeds and built to run on a wide range of PCs, L.A. Noire's robust feature customization includes keyboard remapping and gamepad functionality to both optimize and customize performance and user experience. Along with increased fidelity and improved graphical enhancements, the PC version will also feature 3D support for an even greater sense of interaction and immersion within a painstakingly detailed 1940s Los Angeles.

Originally developed by Team Bondi in conjunction with Rockstar Games, L.A. Noire is a crime thriller set in post World War II Los Angeles. As Detective Cole Phelps, players must search for clues, interrogate suspects and chase down criminals to solve a series of cases based on real world incidents. As he rises through the ranks of the LAPD, Phelps comes face-to-face with the corrupt heart of Los Angeles: from fallen starlets to double-dealing police officers and the vast reaches of the criminal underworld and finally, the darkness of his own personal demons.

I want to play the DLC as well. I don't remember anyone talking about it much around here, is it any good?

I've not tried them. After I've finished the main game, I started collecting film reels, and at this point I'll probably just wait for the last one next month before diving back in. I hear the one released this week was a bit more action oriented, in a good way.

3-4 new cases (depending on if you got one from preordering) for $10 is a deal, I think. There's also the question of the two desks worth of content that was cut, and if that will be finished or not (as of the game going gold, it was still up in the air, and it hasn't been mentioned since. But as well as the game has sold...).

The friend I borrowed the PS3 from wanted it back for the weekend so I returned it and just haven't borrowed it again yet. I think I was on the third arson case, just after royally fucking up the serial arsonist/development company/vacation giveaway mystery.

One more thing that should probably be mentioned for new players: After the initial few handholding (short) cases, it seems like people that really enjoyed the game went to a format of playing one case a night. And some of the people that didn't care for it as much tried to blow through it in a day or two, and felt it was too repetitive...

Do the side missions as they come up, explore, and don't try and do the entire game in 1-2 settings, and I think you'll enjoy it more.

reisub wrote on Jun 24, 2011, 05:43:They said the actors had to exaggerate their facial expressions in order for the system to actually pick them up.

To be honest, I think it's more that the actors had to exaggerate their facial expressions in order for the PLAYER to pick them up. I'd guess that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of everyone who played it has zero skill at lie-detection, so if the actors were subtle about it, nobody would ever figure out when someone was lying.

Obviously the first dozen or so interviews you do, they are hilariously exaggerated, because the game is trying to teach the player what to look for.

My only real disappointment with the system was that EVERY suspect gives away a lie by breaking eye contact. It would have been nice if the last few cases featured interviews where the suspect was a stone-cold liar who could lie while not appearing to lie. Shit, the game even foreshadows that. One of your partners tells you about people who believe the lies they are telling you, and thus are almost impossible to flush out.

And yet you never really get such an interview. Dr. Bishop (Fringe fans will know who I'm talking about) is about the closest you get to a good liar, but even he has very definite tells. (especially because the game insists on letting people look away while you're debating your response. They should only look away while talking, then look you straight in the eye.)

I'm sure they'll make it more subtle for LA Noire 2.Even so, I very much enjoyed it. After playing LA Noire I went back to Red Dead Redemption, and the wooden faces are just jarring in comparison. (Yet when I played RDR for the first time, I thought it looked great, facial wise.)

No one really missed out on much. Red Dead Redemption isn't all that special. Ride horse, hunt, auto aim shootout, rinse repeat. I got 50% of the way in and realised I was just grinding it without enjoyment. My compulsion to hunt everything that moved became a self-destructive chore and I realised masturbating in a dark basement to the same 3 dog eared cosmo fashion sections is so 1991 and I'd be better off playing something non-Rockstar, or just going outside.

I always promise myself I won't play the next RepetitiveStar fest. And then I do.

Perhaps if the dialog and the story were less Canadian made TV Western and a little more HBO Deadwood I'd have enjoyed it. But then I play games for the gameplay not the cutscenes.

Tis true, i guess they exaggerated the facial emotions to make it easier for the player to tell them apart... lets hope future games will make it less "gimmicky" and just use it as 1 of many things to nudge games closer to reality, at least when it comes to graphics and npc behavior

entr0py wrote on Jun 24, 2011, 01:08:If anything it looks out of place only because the bodies are still so manikin like. Like a human head stuck on a robot body.

True. But the face by itself is just so natural. Only a few hours in I surprised myself realizing I was studying faces in the game like as if games had always been that way. Going back to Witcher 2 after that was like watching ventriloquist dummies even though it's no slob in the visuals department.

Personally I don't mind the uncanny valley. I think you've got to trudge through it to get to something really believable. The facial capture technology was a huge improvement over what we're used to. If anything it looks out of place only because the bodies are still so manikin like. Like a human head stuck on a robot body.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jun 23, 2011, 23:29:Exactly, the actual faces of bad actors ... (that said, you are probably thinking of the main characters now, i am thinking of the suspects and various side-characters and their cringe worthy expressions)

Matt Parkman... err Greg Grunberg was great. I don't know if it was the game, his acting, or his ability to read minds but I got owned on his interviews.

As far as over acting and caricatures of emotion, just think of this technology as something between stage acting and film acting. The emotions do need to be exaggerated. It's not because of bad acting and it's not because of bad "animation", it's just necessary in the medium (for now). Especially in a game where you are encouraged to make decisions based on facial cues.

Exactly, the actual faces of bad actors ... (that said, you are probably thinking of the main characters now, i am thinking of the suspects and various side-characters and their cringe worthy expressions)

Its the problem of using actors for the acting.... sadly tech isn't yet there to completely eliminate actors as i don't think you can actually act out the real mimics without an actual (visual and physical) involvement in the scene you are trying to play.

Also, if you look at how they did those facial animations you quickly understand that to have good results you need GREAT actors but also an extremely skilled director who can set-up tones, styles and situations with words and visuals / sound alone. And seems obvious that this was something these recordings lacked.

While great, all those facial animations are "over-done" or just too extreme, they become caricatures of the emotion, its the first thing i noticed when i saw the trailer of this game

I wouldn't. It's some real uncanny valley stuff, distracting as hell; it sort of reminds me of A Scanner Darkly, where you're watching people but you're not. It's an interesting try and it, and I like seeing something new like that, but it seems just off somehow and I didn't enjoy it.

I absolutely hated the gameplay of the game, though, and the interview's reliance on the facial tech was frustrating more than fun...so, take that for what it's worth.